Com. v. Bronner, J. ( 2016 )

J-S51036-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAZS B. BRONNER,
Appellant No. 3408 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 12, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-09-CR-0003294-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016
Appellant, Jazs B. Bronner, appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed on August 12, 2015, following his jury conviction of murder of the
third degree and possession of an instrument of crime (PIC).1 On appeal,
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of sentence. For the reasons
discussed below, we affirm.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter
from the trial court’s February 16, 2016 opinion and our independent review
of the certified record.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2501(a) and 907(a), respectively.
J-S51036-16
On March 31, 2014, at approximately 11:51[] am, Bucks
County Emergency Communications received a report that there
was an unresponsive [seventy-three] year old male at 1005
Winder Drive, Bristol, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Officer
Thomas Van Winkle of Bristol Township Police Department[] was
the first to respond to the scene. He saw the victim, Orlando
Bronner Sr., lying face up on the floor in a large pool of blood,
his face, neck, and clothes covered in blood, as well as several
blood spots on both sides of the wall and the door jam. Officer
Van Winkle contacted detectives because the situation did not
look as the reported accident. The victim was transported to
Lower Bucks Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Annie Bronner, the victim’s ex-wife and Appellant’s
mother, indicated Appellant was the only one home at the time
of the incident. Appellant was transported to the Police Station
for an interview and read his Miranda[2] rights. Appellant
explained to the [d]etectives that he was in his bedroom earlier
in the morning and believed his father was calling for him. His
father asked the Appellant if he was a tough guy, and threw a
haymaker, which missed the Appellant. The Appellant then
returned a punch, they bear hugged, fell to ground, and his
father became motionless. Appellant got up, saw blood under
his father’s head, so he lifted his father’s head. Appellant then
saw the dumbbell, moved it away, and panicked. The Appellant
searched for the victim’s keys to get out of the house, secured
his father back inside the house, and left. Appellant then drove
approximately [twenty-five] to [thirty] minutes to Trenton, New
Jersey, where his mother lives. They then drove back to the
scene and immediately called 911. Appellant stated that he
knew that his father was gravely injured, and he simply didn’t
get his father the help he needed because he panicked.
Appellant was not arrested at that time, and after the
autopsy was performed, the Appellant was asked to return to the
Police Station for a second interview. The Appellant indicated
again that the victim only fell one time and could not explain
how the autopsy revealed there were multiple injuries.
Appellant was then placed under arrest.
____________________________________________
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-2-
J-S51036-16
Dr. Ian Hood, an expert in the field of forensic pathology,
testified the victim had several injuries to his head, including
bruising, swelling, and faint abrasions around his left eye orbit
and temple, a few scratches and abrasions around the left side
of his cheek and forehead, several small bruises on the inside of
his mouth, bruises on his left arm, and fractures to his skull. Dr.
Hood also found fragments of gold paint and gray metal
smearing on the victim’s skull fragments. Angela Schultheis, an
expert in DNA analysis, testified that based on the evidence,
there must have been more than one blow in order to have
blood spatter throughout the bedroom and on the Appellant’s
clothing. The injuries sustained and the blood spatter evidence
were consistent with the victim having been bludgeoned with the
dumbbell.
(Trial Court Opinion, 2/16/16, at 1-3).
On May 6, 2015, a jury convicted Appellant of murder of the third
degree and PIC. Following receipt of a pre-sentence investigation report
(PSI), on August 12, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of incarceration of not less than twenty nor more than forty
years. On August 20, 2015, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking
the opportunity “to present additional evidence and reflections” to the trial
court. (Appellant’s Motion to Modify and/or Reconsider Sentence, 8/20/15,
at unnumbered page 2). Following a hearing, on October 15, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion. The instant, timely appeal followed. On November
25, 2015, and January 14, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on January 21,
2016. See id. On February 16, 2016, the trial court issued an opinion.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
-3-
J-S51036-16
On appeal, Appellant raises the following question for our review:
Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion by
sentencing Appellant to the statutory maximum sentence of
[twenty] to [forty] years on a third degree murder conviction,
when [] Appellant’s sentencing guidelines provided for a
standard range sentence of not less than [ninety] months nor
more than [two hundred and forty] months and an aggravated
range of sentence of up to [two hundred and forty] months[?]
(Appellant’s Brief, at 4) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
On appeal, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred “by not
considering all relevant factors and relying on factors already contemplated
by the guidelines[.]”3 (Appellant’s Brief, at 13). However, Appellant waived
this claim.
Preliminarily, we note, “[i]ssues challenging the discretionary aspects
of sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the
claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings. Absent such
efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.”
Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 275 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal
denied, 860 A.2d 122 (Pa. 2004) (citations and internal quotations marks
omitted).
____________________________________________
3
While the specifics of Appellant’s argument are difficult to discern, he
seems to claim that the trial court should have taken into account the jury’s
decision to acquit him of first-degree murder, and should have considered
mitigating factors such as his failure to testify, in imposing sentence. (See
Appellant’s Brief, at 15).
-4-
J-S51036-16
Here, as the Commonwealth correctly notes, (see Commonwealth’s
Brief, at 10, 13-16), while Appellant did file a post-sentence motion, the only
issue he raised was that he wished to “present additional information and
reflections” to the trial court. (Motion to Modify and Reconsider Sentence,
8/20/15, at unnumbered page 2). It is settled that an appellant waives any
discretionary aspects of sentence issue not raised in a post-sentence motion;
further, an appellant cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal.4 See
Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal
denied, 831 A.2d 599 (Pa. 2003) (finding claim sentencing court did not put
sufficient reasons to justify sentence on record waived where issue was not
raised in post-sentence motion); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Thus,
Appellant waived his discretionary aspects of sentence claim.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment
of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
4
We note that Appellant also failed to raise the issue regarding the court’s
failure to consider mitigating factors in his Rule 1925(b) statement. (See
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 1/21/16, at unnumbered
page 1). As amended in 2007, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925 provides that issues that are not included in the Rule 1925(b)
statement or raised in accordance with Rule 1925(b)(4) are waived. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d
306, 308 (Pa. 1998), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in
Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 431 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-5-
J-S51036-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/9/2016
-6-